mr_a:I don't have any data, but I would have thought the opposite. Except for the fringes, I would have assumed most Americans actually prefer power to be split.

The hope would be that splitting the power between both parties keeps the nuts from either side from getting too much traction.

The problem is that our electoral process seems designed to get the maximum number of extremists elected.

That's why we need open primaries, or a preferential voting system.

Primaries inevitably pull away from the center, since the people most likely to vote in primaries are the people who are more aware of politics, which makes them more likely to be a certain distance away from the center.

Also, I'd love to have an opposition party with some sanity. Someone call me if they find one.

mr_a:I don't have any data, but I would have thought the opposite. Except for the fringes, I would have assumed most Americans actually prefer power to be split.

The hope would be that splitting the power between both parties keeps the nuts from either side from getting too much traction.

The problem is that our electoral process seems designed to get the maximum number of extremists elected.

I think most people would, but the reality is that most don't see both parties being equally sane. If they were, we'd be more open to a split rule. But with one party being seen as evil and one seen as "not as evil but they certainly don't play superman well" we tend to prefer the one that we like more to have total rule since we know that they will have an easier time passing shiat we like.

/and those party descriptions work for either party depending on your view

UNC_Samurai:mr_a: I don't have any data, but I would have thought the opposite. Except for the fringes, I would have assumed most Americans actually prefer power to be split.

The hope would be that splitting the power between both parties keeps the nuts from either side from getting too much traction.

The problem is that our electoral process seems designed to get the maximum number of extremists elected.

That's why we need open primaries, or a preferential voting system.

Primaries inevitably pull away from the center, since the people most likely to vote in primaries are the people who are more aware of politics, which makes them more likely to be a certain distance away from the center.

Also, I'd love to have an opposition party with some sanity. Someone call me if they find one.

Where I live, we have open primaries (Washington State). Not sure it helps all that much, just makes the gerrymandering all the more important.

Actually, I *LIKE* the sort of gridlock that happens from two roughly equal parties. It ensures that only the truly important stuff gets done, while mostly blocking the pet projects or ideological wish-list of either party.

dittybopper:Actually, I *LIKE* the sort of gridlock that happens from two roughly equal parties. It ensures that only the truly important stuff gets done, while mostly blocking the pet projects or ideological wish-list of either party.

In other words, it's a feature, not a bug.

It only LOOKS like gridlock. The large corporate lobbying blocks still get what they want, for the most part. It's you and me that get hosed.

The two party system is fine as long as one party doesn't just blindly oppose every single thing the POTUS tries to do whether they agree with it or not. That's what people have seen the republicans doing all these years and that's why they're in favor in one party to rule them all.

Gulper Eel:A wide majority of Democrats - 64 percent - said they would prefer one-party control

Democrats are more honest about their all-consuming lust for power.

Democrats have always been like that. They take over an area, prevent any other party from having a chance at getting elected, and then they ruin it. Then, after they've bled a municipality for all possible resources, they biatch when the adults (Republicans) have to step in and fix their mistakes. See Detroit or Stockton, CA.

Democrats will do that to the entire US if you let them. Split power is a good thing.

Anecdotally, I don't really want my current party (the Democrats) to be in charge of everything either. The GOP has convinced me over decades of intense and sustained effort that I would rather it be the Dems than them, but the Democrats have done enough really creepy and blatantly unconstitutional or dickish stuff in situations where they have no opposition that I wouldn't be happy about handing them the keys either.

mr_a:I don't have any data, but I would have thought the opposite. Except for the fringes, I would have assumed most Americans actually prefer power to be split.

The hope would be that splitting the power between both parties keeps the nuts from either side from getting too much traction.

The problem is that our electoral process seems designed to get the maximum number of extremists elected.

I wouldn't say that. I'd say the rules reward a minority of extremists. Whether it be over presenting backward rural areas in the electoral college and the house or letting 40% of senators dictate what comes to the floor.

Lsherm:Gulper Eel: A wide majority of Democrats - 64 percent - said they would prefer one-party control

Democrats are more honest about their all-consuming lust for power.

Democrats have always been like that. They take over an area, prevent any other party from having a chance at getting elected, and then they ruin it. Then, after they've bled a municipality for all possible resources, they biatch when the adults (Republicans) have to step in and fix their mistakes. See Detroit or Stockton, CA.

Democrats will do that to the entire US if you let them. Split power is a good thing.

If we had a centrist, freedom based party that tried to keep money and it's corruption out of campaigns and lawmaking (the Supreme court now too) I would agree. We unfortunately have a corporate party that has hit senility and is now dangerously delusional and a labor party that does not know what a labor party is.

See Republicans? This is what YOU have done. By being obstinent assholes at every possible step you could, you've made it so people are fed up with balance because YOU have demonstrated that nothing will get done as long as you control one branch of government. Instead of doing the people's business like you're farking supposed to be doing, you've instead decided that partisan obstruction is somehow a good thing for the country. You have successfully turned off most Americans from the idea of having some sort of balance because of your petty games. Single party control is NEVER a good thing because it can lead to absolute corruption quicker than anything else but because of your sour grapes and crybaby ways, that's the only option you've left us with and it is almost guaranteed to end badly.

Lsherm:Gulper Eel: A wide majority of Democrats - 64 percent - said they would prefer one-party control

Democrats are more honest about their all-consuming lust for power.

Democrats have always been like that. They take over an area, prevent any other party from having a chance at getting elected, and then they ruin it. Then, after they've bled a municipality for all possible resources, they biatch when the adults (Republicans) have to step in and fix their mistakes. See Detroit or Stockton, CA.

Democrats will do that to the entire US if you let them. Split power is a good thing.

You guys haven't been paying much attention to what's happening in states controlled by Republicans, have you?

Yakk:If we had a centrist, freedom based party that tried to keep money and it's corruption out of campaigns and lawmaking

then it would become an extremist authoritarian party that cares nothing for individual or collective rights within five minutes of becoming the overwhelmingly dominant party. This has happened before, doesn't even require going all the way to becoming a one-party state.

Actually, they should outlaw Political Parties and make candidates just express what their beliefs are. Then maybe the "low information voters" will quit just voting for a candidate because of their party affiliation because they've always voted for that particular party.

And term limits!!! Being a Politician should not be a career -- it should be something you do because you want to serve not because you want to rule!!!

Banky: Alright, now see this? This is a four-way road, OK? And dead in the center is a crisp, new, hundred dollar bill. Now, at the end of each of these streets are four people, OK? Are you following?

Holden: Yeah.

Banky: Good. Over here, we have a politician that represents people with money and power. Down here, we have a politician that represents those people without any money or power. Over here, we got Santa Claus, and up here the Easter Bunny. Which one is going to get to the hundred dollar bill first?

Holden: What is this supposed to prove?

Banky: No, I'm serious. This is a serious exercise. It's like an SAT question. Which one is going to get to the hundred dollar bill first? The power-friendly politician, the politician of the people, Santa Claus, or the Easter bunny?

Holden: The power-friendly politician.

Banky: Good. Why?

Holden: I don't know.

Banky: [shouting] Because the other three are FIGMENTS of your farkING IMAGINATION!

This is the problem in America - the yokels shouldn't be voting on national issues! The misinformation and corruption all stems from the fact that people have a voice over the senate and the presidency and then care about national issues above all else. If people were more concerned about their local issues and involved in their local government, we would have more engagement and less of the party-line voting that defines itself on complex national macroeconomic and social issues that average people simply can't understand.

I say repeal the direct election of senators and return the electoral college to its original design of being selected by the state governments. Take away the vote at a national level and there becomes no incentive for nation-wide organizations to fundraise billions of dollars in misinformation campaigns.

...each state would elect its own delegations to the House via proportional representation.

...the Senate would be elected by national proportional vote, relegated to a largely oversight- and procedurally-based role, and have little power as a lawmaking body.

...and the electoral college would be split: the "Senate's" electoral votes for each state dispensed by winner-take-all, and the "House's" electoral votes dispensed proportionally by state.

...and campaign financing would be public-only, the fairness doctrine re-instituted for at least election coverage, and soft money of any type (party contributions, independent expenditure) would be strictly prohibited from use for any electioneering purpose.

Smackledorfer:Lsherm: Gulper Eel: A wide majority of Democrats - 64 percent - said they would prefer one-party control

Democrats are more honest about their all-consuming lust for power.

Democrats have always been like that. They take over an area, prevent any other party from having a chance at getting elected, and then they ruin it. Then, after they've bled a municipality for all possible resources, they biatch when the adults (Republicans) have to step in and fix their mistakes. See Detroit or Stockton, CA.

Democrats will do that to the entire US if you let them. Split power is a good thing.

Good god, you two are morans.

Re-read what I wrote.

For all you two know, I could believe that Republicans lust for power more than Democrats but are either more skilled at concealing it, or more concerned with using power as a means toward fattening their bankrolls under the guise of providing a public service.

Democrats:A fair and living minimum wageSingle payer health care4 weeks of vacation a year, company paid at whatever you average weekly salary isTaxes are truly progressive, with the more you make the higher percentage of your wages go to taxes until you reach 90% or soAnyone can marry the person of their choiceReligion will be fine, or if you don't believe that, ok then.Foreign aid will be the same as it is now, except for Israel

Republicans:No minimum wageNo health care, if you can't afford it you don't get itNo paid vacationTaxes are regressive. The less you make the higher percentage of your wages go to taxesYou can only marry the opposite sex, and then only of the same socio-economic class and raceReligion - Christion only, if you don't like that, leaveForeign aid will be cut off, except for Israel

In both cases those who follow that cult thinks these visions are what will make 'merica strong.

Even if you had one titular party, it would break into multiple factions. You'd have blue democrats and red democrats and upside down dog democrats and corporate democrats and southern democrats and all of them would have different agendas.